index to the pennsylvania family lawyer volumes 1-32 compiled by ...

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSFunge, Ann M. Superior Court Rules ThatRelevant Valuation Date for Closely-HeldBusiness Interest Controlled Exclusively by OneParty Post-Separation is Date of Distribution.[Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006)].28:96-97.Funge, Ann M. Unauthorized Appeal Results inRuling that Parent with De Jure, But not De Facto,Custody has Standing to Seek Child Support.[Seder v. Seder, 841 A.2d 1074 (Pa. Super.2004)]. 26:9-11.Gale, Christine. Marriage Settlement AgreementUpheld When Spouse of Business Owner FullyEngaged in Couple’s Financial Affairs andInvolved in Business. [Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d1061 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. 27:120-21.Gale, Christine. Reasonable Counsel FeesAwarded as a Sanction for FraudulentConcealment of Income in a Child SupportProceeding Should be Awarded in Full. [Krebs v.Krebs, 975 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 31:93-94.Gale, Christine. Seizing of Personal SettlementProceeds Permitted for Child SupportEnforcement. [Campbell v. Walker; Appeal of:Department of Public Welfare, 982 A.2d 1013(Pa. Super. 2009)]. 32:5-7.Gale, Christine. Strict Adherence is RequiredConcerning Venue in the Issue of DivorceDecrees. [Danz v. Danz, 947 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super.2008)]. 30:150-51.Galzerano, Mark R. Home State Jurisdiction inCustody Cases and Test of SignificantConnections. [Zimbicki v. Zimbicki, 810 A.2d 168(Pa. Super. 2002)]. 25:7-8.Ganz, Julie E. Minor’s Brother GrantedCustody–Not Father–When Mother Died.[Chambers v. Chambers, 105 PDDRR 69 (BucksCounty, 2005)]. 27:114-15.Gavlick, Jean Gilroy. Superior Court FindsCondonation is an Adequate Defense to Adulteryas it Precludes Spousal Support. [Hoffman v.Hoffman, 762 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. 23:9-10.Gibbons, Maria Etzrodt. Pre-Retirement MilitaryVoluntary Separation Pay not Subject to PropertySettlement Agreement Division of Retirement Pay.[Horner v. Horner, 560 Pa. 559, 747 A.2d 337(1997)]. 20:42-43.Gill, Maris J.W. Pre-Separation VoluntaryReduction of Income Unpersuasive–Prior EarningCapacity Prevails. [Neil v. Neil, 731 A.2d 156 (Pa.Super. 1999)]. 21:114-15.Grossman, Rochelle. Equitable Distribution/Validity of Waiver in Agreement. [Holz v. Holz,850 A.2d 751 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. 26:42-43.Grossman, Rochelle B. Retroactivity of APL andChild Support Orders Prior to Filing is GainingMomentum: Standard of Review on AppealHeightening. [Simmons v. Simmons, 723 A.2d221 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. 21:37-38.Grossman, Rochelle B. Spousal Support OrderEntered During Pending Divorce CaseUnappealable. [Leister v. Lesiter, 453 Pa. Super.576, 684 A.2d 192 (1996)]. 19:3-5.Grossman, Rochelle B. Spousal Support Shall beBased Upon Reasonable Needs in High IncomeCases, not Guideline Formula. [Mascaro v,Mascaro, 764 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 2000)].23:13-15.Grunfeld, David I. ERISA Trumps State Law.[Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 149 L.Ed.2d264, 121 S. Ct. 1322 (2001)]. 23:37-38.Grunfeld, David I. Failure to Inform EmployerRE: Divorce Subjects Employee to Liability forPost-Divorce Health Benefits Paid When NoHealth Insurance Premiums Paid. [Trustees of theAFTRA Health Fund v. Biondi, 303 F.2d 765 (7 thCir. 2002)]. 24:106.Grunfeld, David I. Non-Debtor Spouse’sUnliquidated E. D. Claim Discharged in Spouse’sBankruptcy. [Schorr v. Schorr, 299 B.R. 97,(Bankr. W.D. Pa., 2003)]. 25:100-1.8